The issue involved denial of LTCG exemption based on allegations of penny stock manipulation. The Tribunal held that without direct evidence or nexus, such additions cannot be sustained.
The case examined whether separate penalties under CGST and SGST were permissible. The Court ruled such imposition unjustified and restricted the penalty to ₹25,000.
The Tribunal held that time limits introduced later cannot apply retrospectively to deny amendment requests. The ruling clarifies that exporters can seek corrections for past errors during scheme transitions.
The Court examined whether GST cancellation for non-filing of returns could be reversed. It held that authorities must consider restoration if the taxpayer files pending returns and pays dues. The key takeaway is that compliance can enable reconsideration of cancellation.
The Court examined whether a complaint arising from a family dispute can be entertained in misconduct proceedings. It held that such complaints are maintainable if they disclose professional misconduct.
The Tribunal held that purchases supported by invoices, GST records, and banking transactions cannot be treated as bogus. It ruled that documentary evidence outweighed doubts raised by the department.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide reasons for rejecting books under Section 145(3). It remanded the matter for fresh examination of this issue.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT order deleting LTCG additions. It ruled that factual findings based on evidence cannot be disturbed without legal error.
The Tribunal held that LTCG cannot be treated as bogus merely based on investigation reports. It ruled that documented transactions through banking and stock exchange channels prove genuineness.
The Court set aside cancellation of GST registration as the notice failed to specify the proper officer and lacked legal validity. It held that such defects violate principles of natural justice.
